Transcript Hyun-A Park - Comparative Performance Measurement: Safety

NCHRP 20-24(37C) – Comparative
Performance Measurement
Safety Performance Based on the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
AASHTO Safety Management Subcommittee
September 3, 2009
Hyun-A Park
Spy Pond Partners
Content
•
Project Context
• Why comparative performance measurement? Why is it important?
• History
•
Project Objectives and Scope
•
Summary of Findings
•
Data Analysis Approach
• Identification of Top Performers
• Identification of Practices Leading to Good Performance
• Top Performing States
•
Safety Best Practices (Noteworthy State Practices)
•
Safety Data for Comparative Performance Measurement
•
Value of Comparative Performance Measurement for Safety
Spy Pond Partners
2
Project Context Why Comparative Performance Measurement?
•
State DOTs share similar strategic goals
•
Best practices can be shared – learn more from each other
•
DOTs’ senior executive staff seek means for understanding & learning
from differences
•
Counter outside efforts to measure DOTs (e.g. TTI, Hartgen, Governing
Magazine)
•
New tool for implementing continuous improvement philosophy
•
Provide “one-stop shop” for priority and emerging business areas (e.g.
safety, project delivery, asset management)
Spy Pond Partners
3
Project Context Why Is It Important?
Growing Importance of Performance Management in
Government Transportation
•
Next federal transportation bill is likely to have a requirement for relating
performance to the budget
•
Each comparative performance measurement project has revealed the
weakness of the current data set for conducting comparisons across
states
•
This program has been embraced by the new AASHTO Standing
Committee on Performance Management
• Many senior executives (CEO’s and Deputies) are members of SC
•
Need to raise awareness across states and accelerate improvements in
policies, data, and behavior
Spy Pond Partners
4
Project Context - History
•
Comparative performance measurement effort for state DOTs initiated in
2004
•
Initial set of activities involved workshops and conversations with
executives to identify candidate areas of interest and pilot focus area
•
Project delivery chosen as pilot focus area. Seven states sign on for
pilot - Delaware, Florida, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia, and
Washington State
• Developed prototype approach for comparative performance
measurement
•
Pilot project transitioned to first comparative performance measurement
study – on-time and on-budget construction
• Study conducted in 2006, report completed in March 2007
•
Second project for smooth pavements (IRI) was started in September
2007 and finished in April 2008
•
Project for safety comparative measurement was started
in September 2008 and completed in spring 2009
Spy Pond Partners
5
Construction Project Cost and Schedule
On time/on budget performance:
•
20 states
•
5 years
•
26,000+ projects
Used to id & profile best practices for
achieving results
Arizona
Maine
Pennsylvania
California Michigan
South Dakota
Delaware Minnesota
Tennessee
Florida
Missouri
Vermont
Illinois
New Mexico
Virginia
Kentucky
North Carolina Washington
Louisiana Ohio
Spy Pond Partners
6
Smooth Pavements – International Roughness Index
Initial Smoothness by pavement type
250
90%
80%
200
70%
60%
150
50%
40%
100
30%
20%
50
10%
0%
0
26 Rigid
14 Rigid
27 Rigid
11 Rigid
4 Rigid
30 Rigid
10 Rigid
20 Rigid
28 Rigid
31 Rigid
5 Rigid
15 Flex
18 Rigid
27 Flex
21 Rigid
17 Flex
4 Flex
19 Rigid
16 Flex
31 Flex
7 Rigid
10 Flex
23 Rigid
28 Flex
6 Rigid
16 Rigid
26 Flex
30 Flex
1 Flex
19 Flex
2 Flex
11 Flex
24 Flex
8 Flex
6 Flex
13 Flex
22 Flex
23 Flex
7 Flex
21 Flex
14 Flex
5 Flex
18 Flex
20 Flex
9 Flex
3 Flex
60
delta_94
delta_170
Length_weighted_IRI
32 States Signed On – 31 States Completed Study
Length Weighted IRI
Cumulative percent of length less than IRI 60, 94, 170
100%
• Practices used by top
performing states require a
clear focus by the agency, and
policies and programs that
support that focus.
• Highlights identified include (1)
use of end result ride
specifications with financial
incentives for good performance
and (2) establishment of close
working relationships with the
contractor community.
• Five agency practices and four
contractor practices were
identified as valuable for
achievement of smooth
pavements.
Spy Pond Partners
• Recommendations for
improving future comparative
performance measurement
Using IRI developed
7
Summary Findings – Safety Performance
•
Improvements in safety performance were the result of coordinated,
focused efforts on the 4E's (engineering, enforcement, education, and
emergency response) with solid leadership, committed players, and
dedicated resources - no big surprises, no silver bullets
•
High degree of consistency across states interviewed in what people felt
was important
Key factors leading to good performance were:
•
Data-driven decision making from top to bottom (at both strategic and
tactical levels),
•
Seat belt and DUI legislation and enforcement involving a large
percentage of local law enforcement agencies,
•
Close working relationships across key players at state and local levels
(and as a corollary, a unifying umbrella or brand for all safety efforts),
•
Effective use of media (supported by considerable outreach and
funding)
•
Use of low-cost engineering improvements at state and local levels
Spy Pond Partners
8
Study Scope - Background
Context
•
AASHTO Board of Directors has set a goal of reducing fatalities by
1,000 per year over the next 20 years to cut fatalities in half.
•
Several states have set their own aggressive targets for fatality
reduction, and have shown success moving towards these targets
•
Many safety performance measurement initiatives underway
•
Safety performance responsibilities do not reside only in state DOTs
•
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is the only national database
for safety-related data that does not rely on a sampling approach
Spy Pond Partners
9
Study Scope - Background
Project Goal
•
•
Identify states with best safety performance
•
Who has achieved greatest improvements in safety performance
within the past five years
•
Peer group states to make most meaningful comparisons
Identify practices used by top performers
•
Share effective practices
with all states
•
Make information on
methodology, analysis, and
results available to all who
could benefit from the
study
Spy Pond Partners
10
Study Scope - Approach
Original Proposal:
•
Use similar methodology used for smooth pavements/IRI for this study
•
Began with participating agencies to determine the measures and
associated data to be used for comparative performance analysis
•
Use participants states input to determine performance measures
and data components
•
Developed template for states
to submit their data
•
Determined top performing states
•
Interviewed agencies for best
practices
•
Present best practices
Spy Pond Partners
11
Study Scope - Approach
Shift in approach required given differences between Safety and the two
prior efforts
•
Not able to generate participation of significant number of states
because safety performance does not reside solely under state DOTs
•
Fatalities (FARS) selected as the primary indicator given importance to
states and availability of reliable data
•
Existence of multiple causal factors and the fact that fatalities are rare
events pose challenges in drawing clear links between agency actions
and performance results.
•
Implications:
•
There may be states with safety practices that have proved to be very
effective in a site-specific context that won’t be picked up through this
analysis -- supplemented study results with literature review findings
Exogenous factors that may account for some of the improvement
observed in the states identified as good performers – identified these
in the analysis
Spy Pond Partners
•
12
Study Scope - Approach
Determining Top Performers Using FARS Data
Specification of performance measures
•
Used available FARS data to analyze state safety performance: 2000-2007
•
Used FHWA VMT figures for urban and rural classified roads – by state for
2000-2007
Data analysis and selection of top performing states
•
Determined peer grouping factors used for analysis
•
Conducted analysis of fatality rates by state to identify top performers
•
•
Used four different methods
Identified top performers
•
Interviewed candidates
•
Used existing documents and
recent case studies
Determined practices contributing
to fatality reductions
Spy Pond Partners
13
Safety Performance Indicators
•
Total fatalities
•
Fatalities/VMT - total
•
Rural fatalities/rural VMT - based on functional class
•
Urban fatalities/urban VMT – based on functional class
•
Number of drivers aged 20 or younger involved in fatal crashes
•
Number of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities, all seat
positions
•
Number of fatalities in crashes involving a driver or motorcycle operator
with a BAC of .08 and above
•
Number of speeding-related fatalities
•
Number of motorcyclist fatalities
•
Number of un-helmeted motorcyclist
fatalities
•
Number of pedestrian fatalities
Spy Pond Partners
14
Final Set of Performance Measures
•
Primary Performance Measure
•
•
Secondary Performance Measure (tie breaker or screening)
•
•
% change in 3 year average between 2000-2002 and 2005-2007 in total
fatalities per 100 million VMT
3 year average 2005-2007 Fatality rate
Supplemental Performance Measures
•
% change in 3 year average between 2003-2005 and 2005-2007 in total
fatalities per 100 million VMT (most recent portion of the 2000-2007 time
period)
•
% change in 3 year average between 2000-2002 and 2005-2007 in urban
fatality rate (fatalities on roads with urban functional classification divided by
100 million VMT on roads with urban functional classification)
•
% change in 3 year average between 2000-2002 and 2005-2007 in rural
fatality rate (fatalities on roads with rural functional classification divided by
100 million VMT on roads with rural functional classification)
•
Change in 3 year average of total number of fatalities
Spy Pond Partners
15
Methods for Identification of Top Performing States
Four methods used – recommendations reflect “union” across methods
1. Straight ranking based on percentage change in fatalities
2. Screen out states with lower than national average fatality rate, then
rank based on percentage change in fatalities
3. Geographic peer groupings - select top state within each of 5
geographic zones (see next slide) – based on percentage change in
fatalities, with absolute fatality rate as tie-breaker
4. Urban/Rural peer groupings – 5 groups based on percentage of 20002002 fatalities on urban classified roadways – select top state within
each group – based on percentage change in fatalities, with absolute
fatality rate as tie-breaker
Spy Pond Partners
16
Peer Groupings - Geographic Regions
•
Used by FHWA for Travel Monitoring – 5 regions
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/08maytvt/region.cfm)
Spy Pond Partners
17
Peer Groupings - % of Fatalities on Urban Roadways
•
Group 1
Less than 15 percent of fatalities on Urban Classified Roads (9 states)
• ME, MS, MT, ND, SC, SD, VT, WV, WY
•
•
Group 2
16-30 percent of fatalities on Urban Classified Roads (15 states)
• AL, AS, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, MN, NE, NH, NM, OK, OR, UT, WI
•
•
Group 3
31-45 percent of fatalities on Urban Classified Roads (14 states)
• AK, CO, DE, GA, LA, MI, MO, NC, OH, PA, TN, TX, VA, WA
•
•
Group 4
•
•
•
46-60 percent of fatalities on Urban Classified Roads (8 states)
AR, CA, FL, HI, IL, MD, NV, NY
Group 5
Over 60 percent of fatalities on Urban Classified Roads (4 states)
• CT, MA, NJ, RI
•
Spy Pond Partners
18
RESULTS – Method 1
Five States with Largest Fatality Reductions
•
The five states with the largest percentage reductions in their fatality
rate are listed below
•
These states had reductions of three to four times the rate for the
country as a whole
• Country average is seven percent reduction in fatality rate between
2000-2002 and 2005-2007
State
2000-2002
# of
Fatalities Fatality Rate
2005-2007
# of
Fatalities Fatality Rate
% Change in
Fatality Rate
Colorado
722
1.69
565
1.17
-31%
Alaska
95
2
77
1.52
-24%
1,329
1.34
1,101
1.06
-21%
331
617
1.41
1.15
289
519
1.11
0.91
-21%
-21%
Michigan
Utah
Minnesota
Spy Pond Partners
19
RESULTS – Method 2
Five States with Largest Fatality Reductions of the States with Fatality
Rates Lower than the National Average
•
Two step analysis
First, 25 states with fatality rates lower than the national average of 1.41 were
selected
• Then, these 25 states were sorted by the percentage change in fatality rate.
•
•
The five states with the greatest fatality reductions are listed below.
State
2000-2002
# of
Fatalities Fatality Rate
2005-2007
# of
Fatalities Fatality Rate
% Change in
Fatality Rate
Colorado
722
1.69
565
1.17
-31%
Michigan
1,329
1.34
1,101
1.06
-21%
Utah
331
1.41
289
1.11
-21%
Minnesota
Connecticut
617
328
1.15
1.06
519
289
0.91
0.91
-21%
-14%
•
Both methods 1 and 2 result in selection of Colorado, Michigan, Utah
and Minnesota. When states with fatality rates higher then the national
average are eliminated, Connecticut replaces Alaska in the list.
Spy Pond Partners
20
RESULTS – Method 3
Geographic Peer Groups
•
Peer groupings were based on the five FHWA regions used for
presentation of travel monitoring information.
•
Rankings within peer groups were conducted based on percentage
reduction in fatality rate.
• Overall fatality rate was used as a tie-breaker.
•
For two of the regions, a second state was identified as worthy of
consideration for investigation.
Region
Selection
West
Colorado
South Gulf Texas
Reasons
Largest decrease in fatality rate (31%)
Largest overall decrease in fatality rate (15%); only
state in this group with absolute reduction in fatalities
MD was one of 6 states in this group of 8 with 5-10%;
South
Maryland
had the lowest fatality rate of the peer group.
Atlantic
Northeast Connecticut Largest decrease in fatality rate (14%); ME, MA and
NY were close behind with 10-12% decreases; CT
had second lowest overall fatality rate
North
Minnesota Tied with MI for largest decrease in fatatlity rate (2223%). MN had largest decrease in rural fatality rate
Central
and largest absolute fatality reduction
Spy Pond Partners
Other Candidates
MA - notable for having the lowest
fatality rate in the country; also has
shown steady decreases.
MI - close second to MN
21
RESULTS – Method 3 (continued)
Geographic Peer Groups
•
Performance results for selected states (including the two “runner up
states”) are shown below:
Region
State
West
Colorado
Northeast
North
Central
•
2005-2007
# of
Fatalities Fatality Rate
% Change in
Fatality Rate
722
1.69
565
1.17
-31%
3,779
1.72
3,477
1.46
-16%
Maryland
636
1.22
627
1.11
-9%
Connecticut
328
1.06
289
0.91
-14%
Massachusetts
456
0.86
429
0.78
-9%
Minnesota
617
1.15
519
0.91
-21%
1,329
1.34
1,101
1.06
-21%
South Gulf Texas
South
Atlantic
2000-2002
# of
Fatalities Fatality Rate
Michigan
Using the geographic peer grouping method adds TX, MD and MA into the
group of states for consideration.
Spy Pond Partners
22
RESULTS – Method 4
Peer Groupings Based on Share of Fatalities on Urban Roadways
•
The peer groupings were assembled based on the share of total
fatalities on roadways classified as Urban – from 2000-2002 FARS data
(see list of peer groups on slide 13)
Region
1
Selection
Maine
(<=15% Urban
Fatalities) [9
states]
2
Minnesota
(16-30% Urban
Fatalities) [15
states]
3
Other Candidates
Tied with MS for largest decrease in fatality rate, close
second to VT for lowest fatality rate. Balance of
declining fatality rate and relatively low fatality rate in
this peer group.
Greatest decrease in fatality rate and lowest fatality
UT-low and declining fatality
rate
rate
Colorado
Greatest decrease in fatality rate and at the low end of MI, - lowest fatality rate in group
the range in fatality rates for this group.
and declining rate; AK- also
had significant decline in rate
New York
Greatest decrease in fatality rate and lowest fatality
rate
(31-45% Urban
Fatalities) [14
states]
4
Reasons
(46-60% Urban
Fatalities) [8
states]
Connecticut Greatest decrease in fatality rate; second lowest rate. MA - lowest fatality rate
5
(61-75% Urban
Fatalities) [4
states]
Spy Pond Partners
23
RESULTS – Method 4 (continued)
Peer Groupings Based on Share of Fatalities on Urban Roadways
•
Performance results for selected states are shown below:
Peer Group State
2000-2002
# of
Fatalities Fatality Rate
2005-2007
# of
Fatalities Fatality Rate
% Change in
Fatality Rate
1
(<=15% Urban
Fatalities) [9
states]
2
(16-30% Urban
Fatalities) [15
states]
3
(31-45% Urban
Fatalities) [14
states]
Maine
192
1.33
180
1.2
-0.1
Minnesota
617
1.15
519
0.91
-0.21
Utah
331
1.41
289
1.11
-0.21
Colorado
722
1.69
565
1.17
-0.31
Michigan
1329
1.34
1101
1.06
-0.21
New York
1518
1.16
1407
1.02
-0.12
Connecticut
328
1.06
289
0.91
-0.14
Massachusetts
456
0.86
429
0.78
-0.09
4
(46-60% Urban
Fatalities) [8
states]
5
(61-75% Urban
Fatalities) [4
states]
•
This
peer grouping adds two new states – ME and NY for consideration.24
Spy Pond Partners
is
si
s
M sip
on p
So V ta i
ut erm na
h o
D n
N Wy ako t
o
So rth om ta
ut D ing
h ak
C o
ar ta
o
W
es M lina
t V ai
irg ne
in
Id ia
ah
U o
In ta
N dia h
eb n
Ar ras a
W kan ka
is sa
co s
O nsin
re
go
I n
Ka ow
Ke ns a
O ntu as
kl c
a k
N
ew A ho y
l
H ab ma
a
N mp am
ew s a
h
M Me ire
in xi
n c
Lo es o
ui ota
N M sia
or
th iss na
C ou
ar r
ol i
in
Te
a
O
nn h
es io
W Vi see
as rg
hi ini
ng a
Pe
t
nn Ala on
sy sk
C lvan a
ol i
o a
G rad
e
D or o
el gi
aw a
a
Te r e
M x
ic as
h
A iga
N rizo n
ew n
Y a
Fl ork
or
N id
M eva a
ar da
yl
H and
aw
a
C Illin ii
N alif ois
ew o
rn
M Con Je ia
as n rs
s e ey
R ach ctic
ho u u
de se t
Is tts
la
nd
M
RESULTS – Method 4 (continued)
Percentage of Fatalities by Functional Class of Road
100%
80%
60%
UrbInt
UrbOth
RurInt
RurOth
40%
20%
0%
Spy Pond Partners
25
Performance Results
2005-2007 Average Fatatlity Rate
(Fatalities/100M VMT)
2.50
2.30
2.10
1.90
1.70
1.50
National Average
1.30
1.10
0.90
0.70
0.70
0.90
1.10
1.30
1.50
1.70
1.90
2.10
2.30
2.50
2000-2002 Average Fatality Rate (Fatalities/100M VMT)
Spy Pond Partners
26
Selected States
Top Performing States Interviewed
•
Alaska
•
Colorado
•
Connecticut
•
Maine
•
Maryland
•
Massachusetts
•
Michigan
•
Minnesota
•
New York
•
Utah
Spy Pond Partners
27
Top performing with multiple methods
Summary Results and
Recommendations for Best Practice Identification
State
Selected
2000-2002
# of
Fatality
by Which
Rate
Methods Fatalities
2005-2007
# of
Fatality
Fatalities
Rate
% Change
in Fatality
Rate
Colorado
1,2,3,4
722
1.69
565
1.17
-31%
Minnesota
1,2,3,4
617
1.15
519
0.91
-21%
1,2,3*,4*
1,329
1.34
1,101
1.06
-21%
Utah
1,2,4*
331
1.41
289
1.11
-21%
Connecticut
2,3,4
328
1.06
289
0.91
-14%
Massachusetts
3*,4*
456
0.86
429
0.78
-9%
Maine
4
192
1.33
180
1.2
-10%
New York
4
1,518
1.16
1,407
1.02
-12%
Maryland
3
636
1.22
627
1.11
-9%
Alaska
2
95
2
77
1.52
-24%
Michigan
Spy Pond Partners
* tied or close second
28
Existing Safety Performance Measurement & Comparison
•
NCHRP Project 17-18 (016) – Creating a Traffic Safety Culture – A Case Study
of Four Successful States
Case Studies of Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan and Washington
• Importance of strong cross-agency partnerships, champions, statewide reach
•
•
NHTSA & GHSA report (Hedlund, Aug 2008) - agreed on minimum set of
safety performance measures for states and federal agencies – used for this
effort
•
FHWA/AASHTO/NCHRP/Austroads International Scan Report - Halving
Roadway Fatalities (April 2006)
•
•
Performance-based process including problem identification, benchmarking, target
setting, strategy identification, monitoring, and integration of results into future
planning
FHWA Comparative Performance Report – used similar methodology –
compared 3 year average fatality rates 1996-1998 to 2002-2004
Success states identified: IA, MI, UT, WA, and OR – 18-25% reductions as compared
with 9% reduction nationwide
• Success states used multi-faceted approach to safety improvement
• Report also reviewed results from four international scan tours: major success factors
were speed management (including road design to achieve speed conformance),
enforcement, public education, data collection, and top-down leadership
•
Spy Pond Partners
29
Existing Safety Performance Measurement & Comparison
•
Making the Case for Transportation Safety (FHWA - September 2007)
• Case studies of best practices with documented impacts
•
NCHRP 20-24(44) Highway Safety Leadership Organizational Issues: A
Survey of States and Recommendations for Sustaining Progress
• Importance of safety champions, no “one size fits all” model. Safety Office
close to governor’s office or in independent capacity can be most effective
model, but success is dependent on right balance of internal leadership,
legislative interest, and public support
•
AASHTO Safety Leadership Forum (2007)
• Successful programs of three states winning AASHTO Safety Leadership
Awards - IA, MI and WA
• Programs emphasized obtaining and widely distributing traffic accident data
and analysis tools, promoting broad-based collaboration among state and
local agencies, and focusing on an aggressive statewide safety goal
Spy Pond Partners
30
Interview Topics
•
Performance Management Approach: goals and targets established, focus areas, use
of performance data to guide strategy and countermeasure development
•
Resource Allocation: allocations to specific safety programs, incorporation of safety
considerations into planning and programming processes
•
Collaboration and Partnerships: mechanisms for interdisciplinary, multi-agency and
interjurisdictional coordination; coordination within the DOT across traffic and safety
engineering, design, construction, planning and programming functions
•
Legislation: passage of legislation related to passenger restraints, helmet laws, DUI, cell
phone use, graduated driver licensing
•
Engineering Solutions: systemwide programs (e.g. for lane departure reductions), black
spot programs, use of road safety audits, methodologies for targeting and prioritization of
countermeasures to make best use of resources
•
Enforcement Solutions: use of targeted or data-driven approaches, technology
applications, synergistic programs combining education and enforcement
•
Education and Technical Assistance: effective methods for changing driver behavior
(speeding, aggressive driving, seatbelt use, helmet use, impaired driving) use of media
campaigns alone or in combination with other solutions, training and technical assistance
targeted at local agencies
•
Emergency Response System improvements
•
Demographic/other “exogenous” changes contributing to fatality reduction
Spy Pond Partners
31
Practices Improving Highway Safety
Investment
Engineering
Partnerships
Safer
Roads
Data
Communications
Spy Pond Partners
32
Safety Best Practices
•
Provide strong leadership
• Establish an executive level committee to ensure coordination and
cooperation and guide major resource allocation decisions
• Identify and empower safety “champions” including state and local
elected officials, safety program managers, police chiefs, and other
community leaders.
•
Keep the collective “eye on the ball”
• Set targets through strategic safety planning processes and actively
monitor progress
• Continually share performance results among major safety partners
• Improve timeliness of crash data through automation of police
reports
• Distribute maps of crashes by type
• Make current crash data accessible on the web
Spy Pond Partners
33
Safety Best Practices (continued)
•
Support legislation to reduce highway fatalities
• Primary seat belt laws to allow for citations to be issued for lack of
seat belt use alone
• Graduated driver licensing to impose restrictions on younger drivers
while they gain experience
• .08 blood alcohol concentration per se laws enabling immediate
license revocation for drunk drivers
• Cell phone usage laws to reduce distracted driving
•
Invest in low-cost engineering improvements with demonstrated
effectiveness
• Shoulder and median rumble-strips
• Cable guardrail/barrier treatments
• Curve delineation/signage
• Signalization
Spy Pond Partners
34
Safety Best Practices (continued)
•
Use data to target engineering, enforcement, education and
emergency response programs where they will have the greatest
payoff
• Use the Strategic Highway Safety Planning process to identify
emphasis areas and select appropriate strategies.
• Use crash data to guide allocation of resources across program
areas to target crash types or behaviors that account for a large
share of fatalities.
• Conduct screening of locations for engineering countermeasures
based on crash and highway inventory data.
• Focus enforcement activities on jurisdictions, highway locations and
time-periods where the highest concentrations of targeted crash
types exist.
• Community-Based Outreach – target outreach programs to specific
populations based on overlaying census, driver licensing and crash
data to identify residential areas and demographic segments with
higher than average risks.
35
Spy Pond Partners
Safety Best Practices (continued)
•
Adopt a unifying message for all agencies with a highway safety
mission
• Agree on a “mantra” or theme (e.g. “Towards Zero Deaths” or “Zero
Fatalities”) and brand all safety programs and safety-related
messaging with this theme
• Promote the understanding that everyone is working towards a
common goal, and that collaboration across agencies is the only
way to succeed.
•
Ensure that there is regular communication among safety partners
to share information about problems and their solutions
• Maintain weekly informal communication among lead staff for
engineering, behavioral programs, and state police
• Ensuring involvement of a broad set of staff in both strategic and
operational decision making to support continuity in programs
• Maintain two-way information flow between enforcement personnel
and central safety office personnel to share information about
problems and recommended solutions
Spy Pond Partners
36
Safety Best Practices (continued)
•
Maximize coordination across state and local law enforcement agencies
• Use law enforcement liaison(s) (LELs) to maximize involvement of local
enforcement agencies in statewide initiatives
• Fund (through federal and state sources) overtime enforcement and
equipment purchase, with “strings” that support resource sharing
• Develop resource sharing agreements among law enforcement agencies
•
Pursue creative and proactive public communications and messaging
• Develop and maintain strong relationships between the Highway Safety
Office and local media
• Involve political leaders in safety-related events to provide enhanced media
coverage
• Maximize opportunities to obtain “earned media” coverage (press releases,
events)
• Ensure local media coverage of each fatality
• Maintain dedicated in-house staff or contractor support to handle
communications for all safety messaging
• Develop community-based messaging (e.g. Spanish language, churchbased, school-based programs)
Spy Pond Partners
37
Safety Data for Comparative Performance Measurement
•
Shift to use of fatalities to fatalities+injuries to provide a more robust
basis for comparison
Fatalities are relatively rare events – random variations impact performance
results
• Continue work on consistency across states on definition and reporting of
serious injuries.
•
•
Support improvements to timeliness of both crash and VMT data
•
States that have achieved quick turnaround have reported significant
benefits in terms of willingness to use the data to target resources where
they will have the greatest payoff
•
Improve locational accuracy of crash data (particularly for local
roadways)
•
Quantification of both enforcement activities and engineering
improvements to allow for cross state comparison would be of value
% of freeway miles with shoulder rumble strips by year (for engineering)
• % of annual nighttime/weekend VMT represented by enforcement activities.
•
Spy Pond Partners
38
Value of Comparative Performance Measurement for Safety
•
Role of this study was to highlight effective practices associated with
states that “moved the needle” for traffic fatality rate during the 20002007 timeframe
•
Results will add to a growing compendium of best practices for multiple
important dimensions of DOT practice (construction delivery, pavement
smoothness, safety…)
•
Bridge condition and incident response this year
•
Comparative performance approach provides a compelling basis for
executives to understand the potential for further improvement and the
practices to be explored for achieving that improvement.
•
Linking results to practice at a macro level in the case of safety has
proved valuable not so much for discovering new practices, but for
reinforcing and lending further support to already recognized best
practices.
Spy Pond Partners
39
Value of Comparative Performance Measurement for Safety (cont.)
•
Looking at what multiple high performing states have done has allowed
distillation of important practices from what is a highly complex and
multi-faceted endeavor
•
Compared to the two other areas (on-time, on-budget and pavement
smoothness), safety is more "mature" with respect to performance
measurement and use of performance data to target improvements.
•
A single "take away" from the interviews with top performing states, it is
the critical importance of being able to FOCUS activities based on
credible and timely data.
•
Safety practitioners have institutionalized use of performance data for
discovery of what works well and what doesn't.
•
Continued work towards improving comparability of safety data across
states is important - it is likely to provide considerable value by enabling
states to learn more from their peers.
Spy Pond Partners
40